alternatehistory.com

I've been thinking this over, and I really think the principate system gets a lot of bad rep that it doesn't completely deserve. Yes, it was far from the perfect solution, but it was not that bad.

First, let me address succesion: For all the criticism the succession gets in the principate, it wasn't that bad. As long as there was a living male member of the ruling family alive, it seemed to go smoothly. The soldiers wanted stability, and they liked dynasties.An example would be at the assassination of Caligula, Claudius, deemed a halfwit and socially awkward by his family and the rest of Rome, was proclaimed emperor by the praetorians and accepted without any serious resistance-certainly the army didn't do anything.

We also see this with Marcus Aurelius. When false rumors about his death spread to Syria and a brief rebellion occurred, it is important to remember that Commodus was not even an adult yet. He was younger than even Nero was at his ascension. When Marcus Aurelius died in 180, Commodus had donned the toga virialis by then, and so there was no obstacles to his ascension.

Even when the third century crisis was looming and army discipline had broken down and upkeep was ballooned, the preference for dynasty's was still strong amongst the soldiers. The boy Elagabalus only became important because he was the cousin of Caracalla. Even when he was assassinated, there was no attempt made by the army to do anything when Alexander Severus was proclaimed emperor-all that mattered to them was he was a Severan. Only after he showed his incompetence militarily and was too stingy with the soldiers (more on that in a bit), was he overthrown by Maximinus Thrax. It is interesting to note that out of the barracks emperors, that there was no obstacles to Gallienus succeeding Valentinian after the latters death-even then, the soldiers still favored dynasties.

Furthermore, the Senate was not completely powerless in determining succession. At the death of Nero, it was their support of Galba that encouraged him to accept the emperorship and return to Rome. It was only his complete incompetence at the job and inability to reign in the corruption of his chief advisors, that the crisis exploded into the Year of the 4 Emperors-Otho (who was loyal to him initially anyway) would have no support to seize power, and Vespasian had made sure to make it a point that he remained loyal. The Rhine legions were always a little uppity at the death of emperors, and a peaceful solution such as a small pay raise, would have been likely.

Another example is the assassination of Domitian-the Senate was able to appoint an emperor from one of their own, and keep the army from getting any ideas. Even at the death of Commodus, the army didn't do anything when Pertinax took power, and it was only after his murder and the subsequent auctioning off of the empire by the praetorians that they took any action.

Back to the death of Alexander Severus. It was only after a series of bad emperors that the Roman financial system began to collapse and the soldiers discipline broke down while their pay ballooned. Commodus increased the soldiers' pay and spent lavishly on his court life and games, almost completely ignoring management of the state and leaving it to corrupt officials. Septimius Severus followed the increase in pay of the army, but not brackbeakingly so. He increased the size of the army, and discipline started to break down, but it was not terrible.

Caracalla on the other hand was a disaster. He spent lavishly, massively increased the pay of the army, and let discipline completely break down. During these four reigns (Commodus, Severus, Caracalla, and Elagabalus) the currency was increasingly devalued-again, it wasn't a fault of the system, but of the men leading the system. It is important to stress though, that Caracalla, like all bad emperors before him (save for maybe Commodus) didn't rule long once his rule became bad (in Caracalla's case, his entire rule). The system worked well enough that bad emperors didn't last long.

That brings us to the death of Alexander Severus. It wasn't a matter of the system was flawed, but a series of bad emperors allowed the praetorians and the army to become used to huge pay increases and lax discipline-Alexander Severus and his advisers allowed neither.

But this alone was not really enough to cause the severity of the crisis of the third century. The Sassanians were a totally new and stronger beast than the Parthians, and the Roman eastern defenses were totally inadequate at combating them-they were used to the weaker and less stable Parthians. There was also increasing pressure on the Rhine and Danube frontiers, as new groups like the Franks and Goths pressured the borders.This combined with the plague (which I believe was still around), the devaluation of the currency, and the increase in army size and army pay, along with a break down of discipline, caused the empire to implode and devolve into chaos.

None of these alone, or even none of these in concert with 1 or 2 others would have been enough to cause the 3rd century crisis on the scale it happened. The principate system was more than adequate for most situations, but this proved too much. It is important to note that the principate, with the exception of the mid 3rd century, was far more stable than the dominate, where there was practically a civil war every time a ruler died.

So, I don't see why the Principate gets all the bad reputation it does. It was far more stable than the late republic that came before it (with the exception of the mid 3rd century) the Dominate that came after it. It had its flaws, but it was certainly a strong and well designed system.
Top